Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and other non-heterosexual and gender diverse (LGBTIQ+) young people utilise a range of digital media platforms to explore identity, find support and manage boundaries. Less well understood, however, is how they navigate risk and rewards across the different social media platforms that are part of their everyday lives. In this study, we draw on the concept of affordances, as well as recent work on curation, to examine 23 in-depth interviews with LGBTIQ+ young people about their uses of social media. Our findings show how the affordances of platforms used by LGBTIQ+ young people, and the contexts of their engagement, situate and inform a typology of uses. These practices – focused on finding, building and fostering support – draw on young people’s social media literacies, where their affective experiences range from feelings of safety, security and control, to fear, disappointment and anger. These practices also work to manage boundaries between what is ‘for them’ (family, work colleagues, friends) and ‘not for them’. This work allowed our participants to mitigate risk, and circumnavigate normative platform policies and norms, contributing to queer-world building beyond the self. In doing so, we argue that young people’s social media curation strategies contribute to their health and well-being.

Background The need for better methods for evaluation in health research has been widely recognised. The ‘complexity turn’ has drawn attention to the limitations of relying on causal inference from randomised controlled trials alone for understanding whether, and under which conditions, interventions in complex systems improve health services or the public health, and what mechanisms might link interventions and outcomes. We argue that case study research—currently denigrated as poor evidence—is an under-utilised resource for not only providing evidence about context and transferability, but also for helping strengthen causal inferences when pathways between intervention and effects are likely to be non-linear. Main body Case study research, as an overall approach, is based on in-depth explorations of complex phenomena in their natural, or real-life, settings. Empirical case studies typically enable dynamic understanding of complex challenges and provide evidence about causal mechanisms and the necessary and sufficient conditions (contexts) for intervention implementation and effects. This is essential evidence not just for researchers concerned about internal and external validity, but also research users in policy and practice who need to know what the likely effects of complex programmes or interventions will be in their settings. The health sciences have much to learn from scholarship on case study methodology in the social sciences. However, there are multiple challenges in fully exploiting the potential learning from case study research. First are misconceptions that case study research can only provide exploratory or descriptive evidence. Second, there is little consensus about what a case study is, and considerable diversity in how empirical case studies are conducted and reported. Finally, as case study researchers typically (and appropriately) focus on thick description (that captures contextual detail), it can be challenging to identify the key messages related to intervention evaluation from case study reports. Conclusion Whilst the diversity of published case studies in health services and public health research is rich and productive, we recommend further clarity and specific methodological guidance for those reporting case study research for evaluation audiences.

Crowdsourcing practices have generated much discussion on their ethics and fairness, yet these topics have received little scholarly investigation. Some have criticized crowdsourcing for worker exploitation and for undermining workplace regulations. Others have lauded crowdsourcing for enabling workers' autonomy and allowing disadvantaged people to access previously unreachable job markets. In this paper, we examine the ethics in crowdsourcing practices by focusing on three questions: (a) What ethical issues exist in crowdsourcing practices? (b) are ethical norms emerging or are issues emerging that require ethical norms? and, more generally, (c) how can the ethics of crowdsourcing practices be established? We answer these questions by engaging with Jürgen Habermas' discourse ethics theory to interpret findings from a longitudinal field study (from 2013 to 2016) involving key crowdsourcing participants (workers, platform organizers, and requesters) of three crowdsourcing communities. Grounded in this empirical study, we identify ethical concerns and discuss the ones for which ethical norms have emerged as well as others which remain unresolved and problematic in crowdsourcing practices. Furthermore, we provide normative considerations of how ethical concerns can be identified, discussed, and resolved based on the principles of discourse ethics.

Background Existing evidence identifies health benefits for children of additional daily physical activity (PA) on a range of cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes. The Daily Mile (TDM) is a popular scheme designed to increase children’s PA within the school day. Emerging evidence indicates that participation in TDM can increase children’s PA, reduce sedentarism and reduce skinfold measures. However, little is known about the potential effects of TDM as a public health intervention, and the benefits and disbenefits that might flow from wider implementation in ‘real world’ settings. Methods We aimed to identify how TDM is being implemented in a naturalistic setting, and what implications this has for its potential impact on population health. We undertook a rapid ethnographic assessment of uptake and implementation in Lewisham, south London. Data included interviews ( n = 22) and focus groups ( n = 11) with stakeholders; observations of implementation in 12 classes; and analysis of routine data sources to identify school level factors associated with uptake. Results Of the 69 primary schools in one borough, 33 (48%) had adopted TDM by September 2018. There were no significant differences between adopters and non-adopters in mean school population size (means 377 vs 397, P = 0.70), mean percentage of children eligible for free school meals (16.2 vs 14.3%, P = 0.39), or mean percentage of children from Black and Minority Ethnic populations (76.3 vs 78.2%, P = 0.41). Addressing obesity was a key incentive for adoption, although a range of health and educational benefits were also hypothesised to accrue from participation. Mapping TDM to the TIDierR-PHP checklist to describe the intervention in practice identified that considerable adaption happened at the level of borough, school, class and pupil. Population health effects are likely to be influenced by the interaction of intervention and context at each of these levels. Conclusions Examining TDM in ‘real world’ settings surfaces adaptions and variations in implementation. This has implications for the likely effects of TDM, and points more broadly to an urgent need for more appropriate methods for evaluating public health impact and implementation in complex contexts. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-7511-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a method for identifying the configurations of conditions that lead to specific outcomes. Given its potential for providing evidence of causality in complex systems, QCA is increasingly used in evaluative research to examine the uptake or impacts of public health interventions. We map this emerging field, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of QCA approaches identified in published studies, and identify implications for future research and reporting. Methods PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched for peer-reviewed studies published in English up to December 2019 that had used QCA methods to identify the conditions associated with the uptake and/or effectiveness of interventions for public health. Data relating to the interventions studied (settings/level of intervention/populations), methods (type of QCA, case level, source of data, other methods used) and reported strengths and weaknesses of QCA were extracted and synthesised narratively. Results The search identified 1384 papers, of which 27 (describing 26 studies) met the inclusion criteria. Interventions evaluated ranged across: nutrition/obesity (n = 8); physical activity (n = 4); health inequalities (n = 3); mental health (n = 2); community engagement (n = 3); chronic condition management (n = 3); vaccine adoption or implementation (n = 2); programme implementation (n = 3); breastfeeding (n = 2), and general population health (n = 1). The majority of studies (n = 24) were of interventions solely or predominantly in high income countries. Key strengths reported were that QCA provides a method for addressing causal complexity; and that it provides a systematic approach for understanding the mechanisms at work in implementation across contexts. Weaknesses reported related to data availability limitations, especially on ineffective interventions. The majority of papers demonstrated good knowledge of cases, and justification of case selection, but other criteria of methodological quality were less comprehensively met. Conclusion QCA is a promising approach for addressing the role of context in complex interventions, and for identifying causal configurations of conditions that predict implementation and/or outcomes when there is sufficiently detailed understanding of a series of comparable cases. As the use of QCA in evaluative health research increases, there may be a need to develop advice for public health researchers and journals on minimum criteria for quality and reporting.

No abstract

For LGBTIQ+ people, the internet and social media are key channels for communicating and connecting with queer peers, and learning about queer life and queer experiences. While digital social spaces have evolved over the past 20 to 30 years, many of the motivations for using these platforms remain the same. This paper draws on data from the Scrolling Beyond Binaries study, centred on a national Australian survey of 1,304 young LGBTIQ+ people. We present key findings from the study examining generational differences across our four age cohorts of our young respondents: 16–20, 21–25, 26–30 and 30–35. Even among this group of young people, we find stark differences by age in self-identification related to gender and sexuality, and also patterns of difference in the social media platforms they use. Our younger respondents identify with much more fluid forms of gender and sexuality, and also tend to favour dating and hook-up apps that are more inclusive. We seek to foreground the ways in which the internet continues to be significant for our respondents for social connection and learning. We also add to our understandings of the complex and evolving ways in which young LGBTIQ+ people use and thus (re)produce digital social spaces, returning to Nina Wakeford’s (2000 [1997]) consideration of ‘cyberqueer spaces’.

Discrimination, harassment and violence can vitiate staff and students’ experiences of education and work. Although there is increasing knowledge about these experiences in primary and secondary education, very little is known about them in higher education. This paper draws from landmark research that examines the interpersonal, educational and socio-cultural perspectives that prevail about sexuality and gender diversity on an Australian university campus. In this paper we focus on three aspects of the broader research findings: the heterosexism and cissexism experienced by sexuality and gender diverse students and staff at the university; their actions and responses to these experiences; and the impact of these experiences on victims. The research demonstrates that although the university is generally safe, sexuality and gender diverse students and staff experience heterosexist and cissexist discrimination, which can have negative ramifications on their workplace and learning experiences.